With all the talk about Kobe's all time status and what not, a topic that flies under the radar is Phil Jacksons place all time. While Boston Red is an Icon and all with the Cigar, the Zen Master has a remarkable track Record in both regular seasons, playoffs and longevity. While he has had some monster teams, that doesn't guarantee championships (see Utah with Malone and Stockton, The 90's Knicks and Pacer squads, etc.). It still takes a special coach to jell it all together...thoughts?
Is Phil Jackson the greatest coach in NBA History?
- Thread starter TJervey
- Start date
it's hard to say..cause phil coach team that was already championship ready...but he's a good coach..but it's hard to say
He did have to 'rebuild' after Shaq left. They didn't even make the playoffs one year.
That's where I am. He's good, no doubt,even great but the greatest? I'm not sold. Those Jazz and Knick teams mentioned where never really monster teams like the 90s Bulls and 00s Lakers, with multiple stars and even former stars coming off the bench and/or in role playing positions to the big stars. Jackson always had the best players and they were almost always built before he got there, the exception being this last Laker team. But even that team still already had a nucleus of Bryant and the returning Fisher to build around.
Now if he had done a Larry Brown and taken shit and turned it into a great team, this wouldn't be a question.
No doubt because Boston Red definitely coached a group of Rec League players to all those chips and the status of GOAT coach ?!?!
You wear sarcasm well, Mr. Jervey.
You wear sarcasm well, Mr. Jervey.
Just graduated from the Blunt school of Journalism! Seriously though, Boston Red had possibly the greatest collection of players in History but no one EVER disses his accomplishments!
Truth.
I wonder if the Celtics would have been so dominant if they had a lottery like they do now.
People have short memories.
Before Jackson got to LA: No titles since Magic Johnson's heydays (1988-2000)
Jackson wins 3 titles and makes finals 4 times. O"Neal and Bryant
win titles for the FIRST TIME in their careers
Jackson "retires", LA doesn't even make playoffs.
Jackson returns: Lakers make finals 3 years in a row winning twice
+Jackson = Championship (or championship run)
-Jackson = non playoff team
PS: Jackson leaves Chicago, Jordan doesn't want to play. Jackson leaves LA, Shaq doesn't want to play. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
Before Jackson got to LA: No titles since Magic Johnson's heydays (1988-2000)
Jackson wins 3 titles and makes finals 4 times. O"Neal and Bryant
win titles for the FIRST TIME in their careers
Jackson "retires", LA doesn't even make playoffs.
Jackson returns: Lakers make finals 3 years in a row winning twice
+Jackson = Championship (or championship run)
-Jackson = non playoff team
PS: Jackson leaves Chicago, Jordan doesn't want to play. Jackson leaves LA, Shaq doesn't want to play. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
All of that is true and counts in his favor but Shaq and Jordan were already leaving, moreso in the case of O'Neal.
A person can make the case with everything that you listed that Jackson is more a savvy self promoter than great coach. He knew when to jump off and when to jump on teams.
When he to his sabbatical, that Laker team was on the way down. The O'Neal/Bryant feud was killing that team. With the Bulls, that train was coming to a halt as well. Whether Phil and Michael stayed or not, Pippen was out and that guy was a key cog in that machine (they won zero titles without him and with Jordan).
Re: Is Phil Jackson
that was the year WITHOUT coach jackson.
other coaches have had the same talent and were unable to produce superior results.
as i've said for YEARS, it is the coaching combined with post talent. that's all that matters. everything else is just interchangeable parts.
that was the year WITHOUT coach jackson.
other coaches have had the same talent and were unable to produce superior results.
as i've said for YEARS, it is the coaching combined with post talent. that's all that matters. everything else is just interchangeable parts.
Re: Is Phil Jackson
Nearly every NBA championship in the last 20 years was won by the team with the best talent.
The Bulls won because MJ was the best player in the league.
The Rockets won because Hakim was the best center in the league.
The Lakers won because Shaq the best center in the league.
The Spurs won because Duncan was the best PF in the league.
Boston won because it had 3 of the best players in league.
The Lakers just repeated because have the best player - kobe and the best big man in the game - game.
Besides the Pistons, I think of another team that was won without having the best player in the league at a particular position.
Phil Jackson coached
Jordan, Pippen
Shaq and Kobe
Kobe and Gasol
What other team in the last 20 years has had 2 players on par with Phil's list.
Miami is the only one with Shaq and Wade and yes they won a championship.
Put a real baller with Kevin Durant, Deron, CP3, Melo, Lebron, Wade, Howard, or Bosh and we will have some real competition in the NBA again.
Duncan, Garnett and Shaq are too old.
Phil Jackson and Red are 2 sides of the same coin. They belong in a category of their own.
Nearly every NBA championship in the last 20 years was won by the team with the best talent.
The Bulls won because MJ was the best player in the league.
The Rockets won because Hakim was the best center in the league.
The Lakers won because Shaq the best center in the league.
The Spurs won because Duncan was the best PF in the league.
Boston won because it had 3 of the best players in league.
The Lakers just repeated because have the best player - kobe and the best big man in the game - game.
Besides the Pistons, I think of another team that was won without having the best player in the league at a particular position.
Phil Jackson coached
Jordan, Pippen
Shaq and Kobe
Kobe and Gasol
What other team in the last 20 years has had 2 players on par with Phil's list.
Miami is the only one with Shaq and Wade and yes they won a championship.
Put a real baller with Kevin Durant, Deron, CP3, Melo, Lebron, Wade, Howard, or Bosh and we will have some real competition in the NBA again.
Duncan, Garnett and Shaq are too old.
Phil Jackson and Red are 2 sides of the same coin. They belong in a category of their own.
Re: Is Phil Jackson
coach hill had shaquille o'neal with a talented squad of starters and couldn't produce the championship
coach harris had shaquille o'neal with a talented squad of starters and couldn't produce the championship
coach collins had michael jordan and scottie pippen and couldn't produce the championship
coach brown had pau gasol with a talented squad of starters and couldn't produce the championship
coach fratello had pau gasol with a talented squad of starters and couldn't produce the championship
it takes the proper coaching to utilize the available talent in order to produce superior championship results.
in coach jackson's case, whenever coach jackson had a mediocre talent he's suffered mediocre results. in 2006 and 2007 coach jackson had a collection of role players.
once you finally got coach jackson (triple post O) together with pau gasol (talented post player), you got 3 consecutive NBA finals.
coach hill had shaquille o'neal with a talented squad of starters and couldn't produce the championship
coach harris had shaquille o'neal with a talented squad of starters and couldn't produce the championship
coach collins had michael jordan and scottie pippen and couldn't produce the championship
coach brown had pau gasol with a talented squad of starters and couldn't produce the championship
coach fratello had pau gasol with a talented squad of starters and couldn't produce the championship
it takes the proper coaching to utilize the available talent in order to produce superior championship results.
in coach jackson's case, whenever coach jackson had a mediocre talent he's suffered mediocre results. in 2006 and 2007 coach jackson had a collection of role players.
once you finally got coach jackson (triple post O) together with pau gasol (talented post player), you got 3 consecutive NBA finals.
My thoughts exactly.
I was just having this argument with my homeboy. I said if it is not Phil, then who is? His only answer was Red. Look man, no coach is winning without talent. What most people want Phil to do is take a bunch of non-talented dudes and build a champion out of them. He doesn't teach basketball. He coaches it. He knows how to motivate teams. He knows how to manage teams. He knows how to manage games. One trademark of the Bulls and Lakers (except not so much this year's Lakers) have been their third quarter runs -- Halftime adjustments.
Boston Red coached NINE hall of famers!!!!! And one of those had 6 guys who eventually made the HOF. And there were only eight teams. LOL.
In every other argument, the number of championships is what is used to determine the best. Why not now?
Boston Red coached NINE hall of famers!!!!! And one of those had 6 guys who eventually made the HOF. And there were only eight teams. LOL.
In every other argument, the number of championships is what is used to determine the best. Why not now?
Re: Is Phil Jackson
3 seasons ago. The big 3 of boston was better than the duo of Kobe and Gasol.
3 season later. Kevin is not that good anymore. Ray allen is at the end of his elite playing days too.
Kobe and Gasol are the better core.
You have to have elite players to win a championship. Hell, you must have the best players to even make it to the Finals. The coaches with the best players win 9 out of 10 championships.
What coach has won with inferior talent?
3 seasons ago. The big 3 of boston was better than the duo of Kobe and Gasol.
3 season later. Kevin is not that good anymore. Ray allen is at the end of his elite playing days too.
Kobe and Gasol are the better core.
You have to have elite players to win a championship. Hell, you must have the best players to even make it to the Finals. The coaches with the best players win 9 out of 10 championships.
What coach has won with inferior talent?
It damn sure takes a special coach to "jell it all together" time and time again.
Exactly. Let him take over the Knicks, Clippers, or Wizards next year & then give him 3 years to make them champions. That's how we would see him as great.
For whatever it's worth, he almost didn't win it this year & Doc Rivers may have outcoached him.....IMO
Re: Is Phil Jackson
Piston vs Lakers
Piston Starters
Point Guard Chauncey Billups ADV
Shooting Guard Richard Hamilton
Small Forward Tayshaun Prince ADV
Power Forward Rasheed Wallace ADV
Center Ben Wallace
Lakers Starters
Point Guard Gary Payton
Shooting Guard Kobe Bryant ADV
Small Forward Rick Fox
Power Forward Karl Malone
Center Shaquille O'Neal ADV
First thing of note. 3 of the Lakers starters were past their prime years.
Karl Malone, Gary Payton and Rick Fox were all at the end of the careers. None of them were elite players. Wasn't that the last season of both Malone and Fox. Payton played another couple years as a backup.
They couldn't match up with Billups, Prince and Rasheed (who was 6 years younger than that dude now on the Celtics).
The Lakers only had a perceived matchup advantage with Shaq and Kobe vs Wallace and Hamilton.
Wallace did what was built to do: rebound and block shots. Hamilton did his job too by scoring in double digits and playing team defense.
The Pistons had 5 players vs the Lakers 2.
The Piston had the better team and thus the Lakers only won 1 game in the NBA Finals. They won 1 game with the Zen master coaching. Phil and the Lakers lost to the best defensive team in league and the better team in the Finals.
That same Detroit team returned to the NBA Finals the following year 05 and lost in the Eastern Conf Finals to Miami in 06.
For that 3 year run, Detroit won the NBA Championship (def. Lakers) and lost to the NBA champions the running 2 years (Spurs and Heat).
Detroit was not an inferior team. The Lakers were inferior.
Piston vs Lakers
Piston Starters
Point Guard Chauncey Billups ADV
Shooting Guard Richard Hamilton
Small Forward Tayshaun Prince ADV
Power Forward Rasheed Wallace ADV
Center Ben Wallace
Lakers Starters
Point Guard Gary Payton
Shooting Guard Kobe Bryant ADV
Small Forward Rick Fox
Power Forward Karl Malone
Center Shaquille O'Neal ADV
First thing of note. 3 of the Lakers starters were past their prime years.
Karl Malone, Gary Payton and Rick Fox were all at the end of the careers. None of them were elite players. Wasn't that the last season of both Malone and Fox. Payton played another couple years as a backup.
They couldn't match up with Billups, Prince and Rasheed (who was 6 years younger than that dude now on the Celtics).
The Lakers only had a perceived matchup advantage with Shaq and Kobe vs Wallace and Hamilton.
Wallace did what was built to do: rebound and block shots. Hamilton did his job too by scoring in double digits and playing team defense.
The Pistons had 5 players vs the Lakers 2.
The Piston had the better team and thus the Lakers only won 1 game in the NBA Finals. They won 1 game with the Zen master coaching. Phil and the Lakers lost to the best defensive team in league and the better team in the Finals.
That same Detroit team returned to the NBA Finals the following year 05 and lost in the Eastern Conf Finals to Miami in 06.
For that 3 year run, Detroit won the NBA Championship (def. Lakers) and lost to the NBA champions the running 2 years (Spurs and Heat).
Detroit was not an inferior team. The Lakers were inferior.
Re: Is Phil Jackson
exactly what are you confused about?
the detroit pistons were not more talented.
they played better as a team. they were more cohesive. in the end, the detroit pistons were clearly the superior team. but that doesn't mean that the players are/were superiorly skilled or superiorly talented.
it only means the team played better collectively. and in the end, that's the name of this game.
exactly what are you confused about?
the detroit pistons were not more talented.
they played better as a team. they were more cohesive. in the end, the detroit pistons were clearly the superior team. but that doesn't mean that the players are/were superiorly skilled or superiorly talented.
it only means the team played better collectively. and in the end, that's the name of this game.
Re: Is Phil Jackson
i concede this point, as it's not really relevant to my point at all. in coach jackson's system, many players are capable of contributing well beyond their prime as long as they maintain focus (examples: ron harper, robert horry).
in coach jackson's system a disciplined veteran is more valueable than a rogue maverick (example: dennis hopson)
there was nothing "perceived" about the advantage that the fakers had in shaquille o'neal v. ben wallace. that matchup was so lop-sided the results were historic. literally.
this is where your "ADV" weighting system is flawed.
you suggest a 1:1 advantage measure when it so clearly was NOT the case.
for example, the advantage that kareem abdul jabbar gifted the 1987-88 fakers over mark eaton was NOT equal to the advantage that karl malone provided over ac green.
in that scenario (fakers v. jazz), the weight of the advantage at those 2 positions (C, PF) would be more realistically represented as something akin to 3:1 in favor of the fakers, as opposed to 1:1 in your weighting system.
returning back to the 2004 NBA finals, shaquille o'neal's 1 was worth at least 3 of the detroit pistons 5.
2004 the pistons benefited from the fakers being unilaterally hijacked out of a championship
2005 the pistons were on the threshold of being ousted by shaquille o'neal's miami heat before dwyane wade was injured in G5 (which the heat still won to take the lead in the series 3-2).
according to your weighting scale (which appears to consider both age and talent) though, it shouldn't have been nearly so close a series (which went the full 7 games).
damon jones
eddie jones
dwyane wade (rasual butler in G6)
udonis haslem
shaquille o'neal
how did that team go 7 games?
i will continue in the next post for the colin powell objectors
i concede this point, as it's not really relevant to my point at all. in coach jackson's system, many players are capable of contributing well beyond their prime as long as they maintain focus (examples: ron harper, robert horry).
in coach jackson's system a disciplined veteran is more valueable than a rogue maverick (example: dennis hopson)
there was nothing "perceived" about the advantage that the fakers had in shaquille o'neal v. ben wallace. that matchup was so lop-sided the results were historic. literally.
this is where your "ADV" weighting system is flawed.
you suggest a 1:1 advantage measure when it so clearly was NOT the case.
for example, the advantage that kareem abdul jabbar gifted the 1987-88 fakers over mark eaton was NOT equal to the advantage that karl malone provided over ac green.
in that scenario (fakers v. jazz), the weight of the advantage at those 2 positions (C, PF) would be more realistically represented as something akin to 3:1 in favor of the fakers, as opposed to 1:1 in your weighting system.
returning back to the 2004 NBA finals, shaquille o'neal's 1 was worth at least 3 of the detroit pistons 5.
2004 the pistons benefited from the fakers being unilaterally hijacked out of a championship
2005 the pistons were on the threshold of being ousted by shaquille o'neal's miami heat before dwyane wade was injured in G5 (which the heat still won to take the lead in the series 3-2).
according to your weighting scale (which appears to consider both age and talent) though, it shouldn't have been nearly so close a series (which went the full 7 games).
damon jones
eddie jones
dwyane wade (rasual butler in G6)
udonis haslem
shaquille o'neal
how did that team go 7 games?
i will continue in the next post for the colin powell objectors
Re: Is Phil Jackson
before i continue with the 2nd part of my post, let me say thank you for a thoughtful contribution to a SPORTS board thread. i hope others can articulate their thoughts as well as you have.
let's continue to explore why i believe that your weighting system is terrifically flawed, and why the 2004 fakers lost in the finals simply because they were unable to exploit the matchup advantage at C.
contrary to popular myth (revisionist efforts be damned), shaquille o'neal was not fat, lazy or out of shape. the beauty of 2004, 2005, and 2006 is that we (basketball fans) have 3 CONSECUTIVE post-seasons (18 total games) of shaquille o'neal v. the detroit pistons.
here is the side by side for shaquille o'neal and ben wallace:
SO FG%: 62.36%
BW FG%: 45.38%
yet you have people who believe to this day that ben wallace was capable of defending shaquille o'neal satisfactorily.
SO FT%: 45.39%
BW FT%: 30.38%
SO PPG: 22.6
BW PPG: 7.9
SO RPG: 9.4
BW RPG: 10.9
SO APG: 1.2
BW APG: 1.4
SO SPG: .4
BW SPG: 1.7
SO BPG: 1.7
BW BPG: 1.1
SO TOPG: 3.5
BW TOPG: .9
SO PFPG: 3.7
BW PFPG: 3.0
the miami heat were able to exploit that matchup successfully 2 years AFTER shaquille o'neal left the fakers. we know why the fakers couldn't.
before i continue with the 2nd part of my post, let me say thank you for a thoughtful contribution to a SPORTS board thread. i hope others can articulate their thoughts as well as you have.
let's continue to explore why i believe that your weighting system is terrifically flawed, and why the 2004 fakers lost in the finals simply because they were unable to exploit the matchup advantage at C.
contrary to popular myth (revisionist efforts be damned), shaquille o'neal was not fat, lazy or out of shape. the beauty of 2004, 2005, and 2006 is that we (basketball fans) have 3 CONSECUTIVE post-seasons (18 total games) of shaquille o'neal v. the detroit pistons.
here is the side by side for shaquille o'neal and ben wallace:
SO FG%: 62.36%
BW FG%: 45.38%
yet you have people who believe to this day that ben wallace was capable of defending shaquille o'neal satisfactorily.
SO FT%: 45.39%
BW FT%: 30.38%
SO PPG: 22.6
BW PPG: 7.9
SO RPG: 9.4
BW RPG: 10.9
SO APG: 1.2
BW APG: 1.4
SO SPG: .4
BW SPG: 1.7
SO BPG: 1.7
BW BPG: 1.1
SO TOPG: 3.5
BW TOPG: .9
SO PFPG: 3.7
BW PFPG: 3.0
the miami heat were able to exploit that matchup successfully 2 years AFTER shaquille o'neal left the fakers. we know why the fakers couldn't.
Re: Is Phil Jackson
First, let me back up. I stated the teams with the best players compete for the championship. I also asked you to present an inferior team that won a championship. You presented the Piston.
The Lakers had an impressive duo with Shaq and Kobe, but they were not better than the Detroit 5.
The stats disagree with your selection. The outcome disagrees with your selection.
Detroit was the team to beat for 3 consecutive seasons.
Also Shaq was the player to beat for those 3 consecutive seasons.
05, Shaq was presented with the same adversary, the Pistons. His new team, the 05 Heat was a better team than the 04 Lakers. The Pistons and the Heat were more evenly matched. That's why they went 7 games.
The following year, the 06 Heat beat the Pistons and won the NBA championship. They had the talent to win it all.
First, let me back up. I stated the teams with the best players compete for the championship. I also asked you to present an inferior team that won a championship. You presented the Piston.
The Lakers had an impressive duo with Shaq and Kobe, but they were not better than the Detroit 5.
The stats disagree with your selection. The outcome disagrees with your selection.
Detroit was the team to beat for 3 consecutive seasons.
Also Shaq was the player to beat for those 3 consecutive seasons.
05, Shaq was presented with the same adversary, the Pistons. His new team, the 05 Heat was a better team than the 04 Lakers. The Pistons and the Heat were more evenly matched. That's why they went 7 games.
The following year, the 06 Heat beat the Pistons and won the NBA championship. They had the talent to win it all.
Condensed
I looked it up too. During the lakers v Pistons Finals.
Shaq avg 26pts and 10rbs.__________Wallace avg 10pts and 13rbs.
Kobe avg 22pts and 3rbs.__________Hamilton avg 21pts and 5rbs.
Shaq had the only real advantage in this series but it was not 3:1.
The Pistons was satisfied with Wallace's double double.
Malone avg 5pts and 8rbs.__________Rasheed avg 13pts, 8 rbs
Payton avg 4pts 3rbs and 4 ast.__________Billups avg 21pts, 3 rbs, and 5
Fox avg 3pts 1__________Prince avg 10pts, 7
It is clear the Pistons had 5 players. They all averaged 10 pts and outplayed the Lakers in 3 positions. The Lakers were understaffed. It can't be any more apparent.
I looked it up too. During the lakers v Pistons Finals.
Shaq avg 26pts and 10rbs.__________Wallace avg 10pts and 13rbs.
Kobe avg 22pts and 3rbs.__________Hamilton avg 21pts and 5rbs.
Shaq had the only real advantage in this series but it was not 3:1.
The Pistons was satisfied with Wallace's double double.
Malone avg 5pts and 8rbs.__________Rasheed avg 13pts, 8 rbs
Payton avg 4pts 3rbs and 4 ast.__________Billups avg 21pts, 3 rbs, and 5
Fox avg 3pts 1__________Prince avg 10pts, 7
It is clear the Pistons had 5 players. They all averaged 10 pts and outplayed the Lakers in 3 positions. The Lakers were understaffed. It can't be any more apparent.
Re: Is Phil Jackson
Not coincidentally, this was the year Brown wasn't coach of the Pistons.
Not coincidentally, this was the year Brown wasn't coach of the Pistons.
He definitely did. Perkins injury was their undoing.
Re: Is Phil Jackson
yes, those are key words. i know, because i typed them.
karl malone was more productive for the fakers in 2003-04 than robert horry was in 2002-03.
gary payton was more productive for the fakers in 2003-04 than derek fisher was in 2002-03.
karl malone was more productive for the fakers in 2003-04 than stanislav medvedenko was in 2003-04
karl malone and gary payton were still contributing beyond their prime for the fakers. karl malone being hobbled by injury in the NBA finals doesn't change the fact that he was making solid contributions to the team.
the beautiful thing about the triple post O is that the role players (everyone outside of the principal post player) are interchangeable. notice that stanislave medvedenko started almost half the games in 2003-04 and the faker still posted 56 wins.
this is all relevant because you suggested that "age/post prime" status somehow contributed to the pistons defeating the fakers in the 2003-04 NBA finals. "age/post prime" status was NOT the reason.
your words:
3 of the Lakers starters were past their prime years.
Karl Malone, Gary Payton and Rick Fox were all at the end of the careers. None of them were elite players. Wasn't that the last season of both Malone and Fox.
agreed.
karl malone attempted to play though hobbled by injury. gary payton bristled within the confines of the triple post O. those who point to gary payton's offensive production in the NBA finals is a red herring though.
does a player who averages fewer than 6 FGAs per game shoulder significant blame for O woes, regardless of FG%? no.
karl malone was playing fine within the triple post O. of the players mentioned, gary payton is the 1 who wanted to play with more freedom.
this is the 2nd time you mentioned rick fox specifically. i believe this is a red flag. why do you continue to mention rick fox?
yes, a properly run triple post O is capable of preventing the pistons from scoring. proper execution of O leads to proper execution of D.
you did claim 1:1 correlation. that's how you arrived at this statement:
The Pistons had 5 players vs the Lakers 2.
5 dudes with slingshots (detroit pistons) defeated a team with a howitzer (fakers) because someone kept stealing the ammunition.
i was. providing an example which illustrates my point is a prime example of staying on point.
thank you for looking it up.
shaquille o'neal owned ben wallace; no need to contest what you've posted regarding shaquille o'neal.
according to your post, tobe averaged 22 points per game in the NBA finals. what you didn't mention is that tobe averaged 22.6 FGAs per game to do it.
according to your post, richard hamilton averaged 21 points per game in the NBA finals. what you didnt' mention is that richard hamilton averaged 18.4 FGAs per game to do it.
tobe: 22 points per game on 22.6 FGAs per game.
richard hamilton: 21 points per game on 18.4 FGAs per game.
more evidence that shaquille o'neal mismatch (the only real advantage in this series ) was not exploited properly.
i'm sure that coach brown was satisfied with ben wallace's productivity. i'm not at all certain that coach brown was satisfied with ben wallace giving up a HISTORIC (you can look it up) FG% in the NBA finals to the opponent's starting C.
i am also certain that coach brown was HIGHLY satisfied to see that shaquille o'neal averaged fewer than 17 FGAs per game in spite of shooting the highest FG% of any starting C in the NBA finals in the modern era. it was validation that his ploy worked.
again with rick fox? why? red flag alert again. i'm starting to become disappointed.
it can't be more apparent that the fakers were adequately staffed. what they lacked wasn't superior talent. what they lacked was superior execution and discipline with regard to the game plan.
tobe. it can't be any more apparent.
eddie jones was competing in his "vital years"?
agreed.
the fakers had an unwavering monolith in shaquille o'neal, and a petulent, ego-driven saboteur glory hound in tobe.
the detroit pistons were superiorly focused, not superiorly talented.
which statistics would those be?
the outcome does not disagree at all, because the outcome was not solely (or even primarily) determined by the team with greater talent. the outcome was determined by the team who believed more strongly in team goals and one another.
and they were beaten in 2 out of 3 seasons.
2003-04 was the aberration. 6 games v. the nets? 7 games v. the pacers? but only 5 against the fakers?
damon jones better than gary payton?
udonis haslem better than karl malone?
who was 34 year old eddie jones (his next to last season as a full time starter in the NBA) better than?
they had the "talent to win it all" in 2004-05. what they didn't have was the good fortune to have dwyane wade remain injury free.
rick fox again? red flag, strike 3. i knew it was too good to be true. it's wrong of me to expect decent basketball discussions here.
yes, those are key words. i know, because i typed them.
karl malone was more productive for the fakers in 2003-04 than robert horry was in 2002-03.
gary payton was more productive for the fakers in 2003-04 than derek fisher was in 2002-03.
karl malone was more productive for the fakers in 2003-04 than stanislav medvedenko was in 2003-04
karl malone and gary payton were still contributing beyond their prime for the fakers. karl malone being hobbled by injury in the NBA finals doesn't change the fact that he was making solid contributions to the team.
the beautiful thing about the triple post O is that the role players (everyone outside of the principal post player) are interchangeable. notice that stanislave medvedenko started almost half the games in 2003-04 and the faker still posted 56 wins.
this is all relevant because you suggested that "age/post prime" status somehow contributed to the pistons defeating the fakers in the 2003-04 NBA finals. "age/post prime" status was NOT the reason.
your words:
3 of the Lakers starters were past their prime years.
Karl Malone, Gary Payton and Rick Fox were all at the end of the careers. None of them were elite players. Wasn't that the last season of both Malone and Fox.
agreed.
karl malone attempted to play though hobbled by injury. gary payton bristled within the confines of the triple post O. those who point to gary payton's offensive production in the NBA finals is a red herring though.
does a player who averages fewer than 6 FGAs per game shoulder significant blame for O woes, regardless of FG%? no.
karl malone was playing fine within the triple post O. of the players mentioned, gary payton is the 1 who wanted to play with more freedom.
this is the 2nd time you mentioned rick fox specifically. i believe this is a red flag. why do you continue to mention rick fox?
yes, a properly run triple post O is capable of preventing the pistons from scoring. proper execution of O leads to proper execution of D.
you did claim 1:1 correlation. that's how you arrived at this statement:
The Pistons had 5 players vs the Lakers 2.
5 dudes with slingshots (detroit pistons) defeated a team with a howitzer (fakers) because someone kept stealing the ammunition.
i was. providing an example which illustrates my point is a prime example of staying on point.
thank you for looking it up.
shaquille o'neal owned ben wallace; no need to contest what you've posted regarding shaquille o'neal.
according to your post, tobe averaged 22 points per game in the NBA finals. what you didn't mention is that tobe averaged 22.6 FGAs per game to do it.
according to your post, richard hamilton averaged 21 points per game in the NBA finals. what you didnt' mention is that richard hamilton averaged 18.4 FGAs per game to do it.
tobe: 22 points per game on 22.6 FGAs per game.
richard hamilton: 21 points per game on 18.4 FGAs per game.
more evidence that shaquille o'neal mismatch (the only real advantage in this series ) was not exploited properly.
i'm sure that coach brown was satisfied with ben wallace's productivity. i'm not at all certain that coach brown was satisfied with ben wallace giving up a HISTORIC (you can look it up) FG% in the NBA finals to the opponent's starting C.
i am also certain that coach brown was HIGHLY satisfied to see that shaquille o'neal averaged fewer than 17 FGAs per game in spite of shooting the highest FG% of any starting C in the NBA finals in the modern era. it was validation that his ploy worked.
again with rick fox? why? red flag alert again. i'm starting to become disappointed.
it can't be more apparent that the fakers were adequately staffed. what they lacked wasn't superior talent. what they lacked was superior execution and discipline with regard to the game plan.
tobe. it can't be any more apparent.
eddie jones was competing in his "vital years"?
agreed.
the fakers had an unwavering monolith in shaquille o'neal, and a petulent, ego-driven saboteur glory hound in tobe.
the detroit pistons were superiorly focused, not superiorly talented.
which statistics would those be?
the outcome does not disagree at all, because the outcome was not solely (or even primarily) determined by the team with greater talent. the outcome was determined by the team who believed more strongly in team goals and one another.
and they were beaten in 2 out of 3 seasons.
2003-04 was the aberration. 6 games v. the nets? 7 games v. the pacers? but only 5 against the fakers?
damon jones better than gary payton?
udonis haslem better than karl malone?
who was 34 year old eddie jones (his next to last season as a full time starter in the NBA) better than?
they had the "talent to win it all" in 2004-05. what they didn't have was the good fortune to have dwyane wade remain injury free.
rick fox again? red flag, strike 3. i knew it was too good to be true. it's wrong of me to expect decent basketball discussions here.
This is silly.
The Lakers didn't lose a 1 and done game. It was a series. The Lakers also played the Pistons twice in the regular season and split with them. That was before the Pistons traded to acquire Rasheed. So the Lakers went 2 for 7 against the Piston during that year.
The Lakers had 5 games in the Finals to demonstrate the ability of the players to execute the effectiveness of Phil's triple post offense against the eastern conference champions.
They failed to execute 4 out of 5 games.
The players in questions didn't have the ability to perform as desired.
You can make any excuse you want for their failure. You can even blame Kobe Jellybean Bryant if that makes you happy.
Detroit was a team that was built on defense. That defense was effective at defending the Lakers role players. It also lowered Kobe's efficiency.
But you can make any excuse you want for their ineffectiveness.
I repeat. The stats demonstrate that 5 Pistons players averaged 10 or more per game.
I repeat. Phil's triple post offensive scheme doesn't apply on the defensive side of the court. The Lakers didn't defend.
The stats show that the Lakers' offense went thru 2 players.
That stats show that the Pistons' offense went thru 5 players.
Detroit had 5 solid players and the Lakers didn't.
B. Wallace, Rasheed, Prince, Hamilton and Billups. That is a team of ballers.
The Lakers didn't lose a 1 and done game. It was a series. The Lakers also played the Pistons twice in the regular season and split with them. That was before the Pistons traded to acquire Rasheed. So the Lakers went 2 for 7 against the Piston during that year.
The Lakers had 5 games in the Finals to demonstrate the ability of the players to execute the effectiveness of Phil's triple post offense against the eastern conference champions.
They failed to execute 4 out of 5 games.
The players in questions didn't have the ability to perform as desired.
You can make any excuse you want for their failure. You can even blame Kobe Jellybean Bryant if that makes you happy.
Detroit was a team that was built on defense. That defense was effective at defending the Lakers role players. It also lowered Kobe's efficiency.
But you can make any excuse you want for their ineffectiveness.
I repeat. The stats demonstrate that 5 Pistons players averaged 10 or more per game.
I repeat. Phil's triple post offensive scheme doesn't apply on the defensive side of the court. The Lakers didn't defend.
The stats show that the Lakers' offense went thru 2 players.
That stats show that the Pistons' offense went thru 5 players.
Detroit had 5 solid players and the Lakers didn't.
B. Wallace, Rasheed, Prince, Hamilton and Billups. That is a team of ballers.
Re: Is Phil Jackson
glad you pointed to the regular season record.
yes, the pistons and fakers split the regular season.
do you remember why? the fakers lost 1 of the regular season games because shaquille o'neal played reduced minutes due to foul trouble.
what happened in the game he played full minutes? exactly. the fakers won.
agreed. the fakers failed to execute the triple post O.
agreed.
false. the player ability was there. it was always there (with the exception of karl malone due to injury). the willingness to play together was not a shared objective.
i believe the middle name is bean.
and it's not an excuse. simply a recounting of what happened.
one thing i won't do though, is fabricate an explanation that is based in part on the strength of a player that didn't even start in the NBA finals.
agreed.
the 2003-04 detroit pistons were ABSOLUTELY a strong defensive squad. top 5 or better in opponent FG%, opponent 3FG%, opponent points per game, and opponent rebounds.
that's why it is even more ABSOLUTELY remarkable that shaquille o'neal was able to have such HISTORIC success against such a formidable D.
and ABSOLUTELY tragic that the fakers could not exploit that weapon. ABSOLUTELY tragic that an inferior tool subverted team success over individual accomplishment. ABSOLUTELY neutralizing superior talent against a team with players who were willing to work together.
very nice. no need to repeat it.
the problem is that you are misinterpreting those statistics.
what those statistics should tell you is that 1 team played more like a team.
what those statistics CAN NOT tell you is that the detroit pistons had more talent or more talented players.
get it?
really? it ABSOLUTELY does. proper execution of the O leads to proper execution of the D.
fakers didn't defend? really? detroit pistons averaged 90 points per game that year.
guess how much the pistons averaged in the series? 90 points per game. and that is skewed UP due to an OT G2.
truth is, the fakers didn't score. fakers averaged 98 points per game that year.
guess how much the fakers averaged in the series? 81.8 points per game. and that is skewed UP due to an OT G2.
what caused the fakers to score 16 points per game less in that series? detroit D, and coach brown's ploy to tempt a sucker to keep the O out of the post.
glad you pointed to the regular season record.
yes, the pistons and fakers split the regular season.
do you remember why? the fakers lost 1 of the regular season games because shaquille o'neal played reduced minutes due to foul trouble.
what happened in the game he played full minutes? exactly. the fakers won.
agreed. the fakers failed to execute the triple post O.
agreed.
false. the player ability was there. it was always there (with the exception of karl malone due to injury). the willingness to play together was not a shared objective.
i believe the middle name is bean.
and it's not an excuse. simply a recounting of what happened.
one thing i won't do though, is fabricate an explanation that is based in part on the strength of a player that didn't even start in the NBA finals.
agreed.
the 2003-04 detroit pistons were ABSOLUTELY a strong defensive squad. top 5 or better in opponent FG%, opponent 3FG%, opponent points per game, and opponent rebounds.
that's why it is even more ABSOLUTELY remarkable that shaquille o'neal was able to have such HISTORIC success against such a formidable D.
and ABSOLUTELY tragic that the fakers could not exploit that weapon. ABSOLUTELY tragic that an inferior tool subverted team success over individual accomplishment. ABSOLUTELY neutralizing superior talent against a team with players who were willing to work together.
very nice. no need to repeat it.
the problem is that you are misinterpreting those statistics.
what those statistics should tell you is that 1 team played more like a team.
what those statistics CAN NOT tell you is that the detroit pistons had more talent or more talented players.
get it?
really? it ABSOLUTELY does. proper execution of the O leads to proper execution of the D.
fakers didn't defend? really? detroit pistons averaged 90 points per game that year.
guess how much the pistons averaged in the series? 90 points per game. and that is skewed UP due to an OT G2.
truth is, the fakers didn't score. fakers averaged 98 points per game that year.
guess how much the fakers averaged in the series? 81.8 points per game. and that is skewed UP due to an OT G2.
what caused the fakers to score 16 points per game less in that series? detroit D, and coach brown's ploy to tempt a sucker to keep the O out of the post.
Re: Is Phil Jackson
yeah, he ran out on them like he did with a dozen other teams. At least he actually won something this time before leaving instead of just bolting away after a playoff appearance. Sorry, but greatest coaches do NOT flee the scene like he always did. Like he became KNOWN for (after leaving the Nets). Rather, they stick out a shitty situation (like Jackson did after Shaq left the Lakers) and make it a champion
btw, Detroit wasn't exactly in the worst condition when Brown got there
yeah, he ran out on them like he did with a dozen other teams. At least he actually won something this time before leaving instead of just bolting away after a playoff appearance. Sorry, but greatest coaches do NOT flee the scene like he always did. Like he became KNOWN for (after leaving the Nets). Rather, they stick out a shitty situation (like Jackson did after Shaq left the Lakers) and make it a champion
btw, Detroit wasn't exactly in the worst condition when Brown got there